In a speech delivered at Osawatomie High School in Osawatomie, Kansas, on Tuesday, President Barack Obama argued that while a limited government that preserves free markets "speaks to our rugged individualism" as Americans, such a system "doesn't work" and "has never worked" and that Americans must look to a more activist government that taxes more, spends more and regulates more if they want to preserve the middle class.

"'[T]here is a certain crowd in Washington who, for the last few decades, have said, lets respond to this economic challenge with the same old tune. 'The market will take care of everything,' they tell us," said Obama. "If we just cut more regulations and cut more taxes--especially for the wealthy--our economy will grow stronger.

"Sure, they say, there will be winners and losers," Obama continued. "But if the winners do really well, then jobs and prosperity will eventually trickle down to everybody else. And, they argue, even if prosperity doesnt trickle down, well, thats the price of liberty.

"Now, its a simple theory," said Obama. "And we have to admit, its one that speaks to our rugged individualism and our healthy skepticism of too much government. Thats in Americas DNA. And that theory fits well on a bumper sticker. But heres the problem: It doesnt work. It has never worked.

"It didnt work when it was tried in the decade before the Great Depression," said Obama. "Its not what led to the incredible postwar booms of the 50s and 60s. And it didnt work when we tried it during the last decade. I mean, understand, its not as if we havent tried this theory.

"Remember in those years, in 2001 and 2003, Congress passed two of the most expensive tax cuts for the wealthy in history," said Obama. "And what did it get us? The slowest job growth in half a century. Massive deficits that have made it much harder to pay for the investments that built this country and provided the basic security that helped millions of Americans reach and stay in the middle class==things like education and infrastructure, science and technology, Medicare and Social Security.

"Remember that in those same years, thanks to some of the same folks who are now running Congress, we had weak regulation, we had little oversight, and what did it get us?" said Obama. "Insurance companies that jacked up peoples premiums with impunity and denied care to patients who were sick, mortgage lenders that tricked families into buying homes they couldnt afford, a financial sector where irresponsibility and lack of basic oversight nearly destroyed our entire economy.

"We simply cannot return to this brand of 'youre on your own' economics if were serious about rebuilding the middle class in this country," said Obama.

Tax cuts didn't lead to massive deficits, it actually brought in more revenue for expenses. It is the 2006 midterm election that turned over the Congress to Democrat majorities that did the spending that caused the major escalation in the deficit.

And slow job growth? What could possibly impede any business wanting to grow? Could it be managing expenses? Expenses like taxes and complying with government regulation.

He doesn't even understand the problem. The media doesn't want to present facts that make reality difficult for Obama. And now Democrat supporters can get exited over this nonsense economics this week. If the implications weren't so serious I'd have a good laugh at some of the locals as they express their anticipation excitement...

President Barack Obama argued that while a limited government that preserves free markets "speaks to our rugged individualism" as Americans, such a system "doesn't work" and "has never worked" and that Americans must look to a more activist government that taxes more, spends more and regulates more if they want to preserve the middle class.

I didn't see any satire tags...

If there is ANY doubt that 0bama is a tin pot dictator wannabe that despises personal freedom, that statement should remove any doubt.

I’m listening to the audio unabridged version of Les Miserables. Those who only know this book from the stage production are missing out on Hugo’s brilliance. He is discussing through plot and sometimes through plain essay style, the roll of government. He analyzes the French Revolution and the situation when he was writing the book which was written in 1862 but he discusses with great interest Communism. Right now I’m listening to I think Book for of the last volume but I get lost when I do audio versions. He is saying that government creates wealth and it redistributes it. He says you have to have both. Fascinating. I recommend it. Great story too.

20
posted on 09/03/2012 7:32:03 AM PDT
by Mercat
(Necessity is the argument of tyrants. John Milton)

Obama’s big government has only brought us massive unemployment, crushing and unsustainable debt, productivity killing government regulations, and ridicuously high engery prices. Four yeats of comoplete and total economic failure. The next four years would be far worse.

"Now, its a simple theory," said Obama. "And we have to admit, its one that speaks to our rugged individualism and our healthy skepticism of too much government. Thats in Americas DNA. And that theory fits well on a bumper sticker. But heres the problem: It doesnt work. It has never worked.

"It didnt work when it was tried in the decade before the Great Depression," said Obama. "Its not what led to the incredible postwar booms of the 50s and 60s. And it didnt work when we tried it during the last decade. I mean, understand, its not as if we havent tried this theory.

If I was running for President and I wanted to lose big time, I would say this EXACT same thing Obama spouted! I am almost convinced he doesn't want to win. Remember, he had to run a little center right to win in '08. Now he's spouting full fledged communist/socialist crap and he expects everyone's going to love this?

Obama either wants to lose, or he's such an arrogant narcissist he thinks he can even out do Satan himself!

26
posted on 09/03/2012 7:35:30 AM PDT
by sirchtruth
(Freedom is not free.)

A whole lot of Americans, way too many, find President Obama’s arguments compelling. It’s the old security versus liberty meme. Too many Americans want government to protect them from life’s risks, but what is Obama really offering? He’s offering to share the pie evenly, but what he doesn’t say is it’s going to be an ever shrinking pie. It’s not like this hasn’t been tried in the past. It has, and it failed miserably. The only ones who truly prospered under such a system were the leaders, and even they had far less than they might have had in a free market system.

Yes. President Obama offers what he can’t really deliver. Nonetheless, people on the dole don’t really care about liberty. All they want to know is who is going to deliver the freebies.

His lies and exagerations just get worse by the day — because a compliant and corrupt media allows him to get away with it. Never any serious questions asked so he keeps spouting more and more ideological nonsense and falsehoods.

He said this last Tuesday and we’re JUST NOW hearing about it? Has this been reported anywhere other than CNS? I haven’t seen this on FoxNews, American Thinker, Spectator or anywhere else for that matter. This crap needs to be shouted from the highest heavens.

If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.

More importantly, why does the GOP refuse to use such perfect examples of free market superiority any time these lying SOBs pull this crap?

Great question from a great post in a thread of great posts.

Men naturally rebel against the injustice of which they are victims. Thus, when plunder is organized by law for the profit of those who make the law, all the plundered classes try somehow to enter  by peaceful or revolutionary means  into the making of laws. According to their degree of enlightenment, these plundered classes may propose one of two entirely different purposes when they attempt to attain political power: Either they may wish to stop lawful plunder, or they may wish to share in it.

Woe to the nation when this latter purpose prevails among the mass victims of lawful plunder when they, in turn, seize the power to make laws! Until that happens, the few practice lawful plunder upon the many, a common practice where the right to participate in the making of law is limited to a few persons. But then, participation in the making of law becomes universal. And then, men seek to balance their conflicting interests by universal plunder. Instead of rooting out the injustices found in society, they make these injustices general. As soon as the plundered classes gain political power, they establish a system of reprisals against other classes. They do not abolish legal plunder. (This objective would demand more enlightenment than they possess.) Instead, they emulate their evil predecessors by participating in this legal plunder, even though it is against their own interests.

It is as if it were necessary, before a reign of justice appears, for everyone to suffer a cruel retribution  some for their evilness, and some for their lack of understanding.

It is impossible to introduce into society a greater change and a greater evil than this: the conversion of the law into an instrument of plunder.

“Its almost like he knows hes going to lose, and is just spouting off in frustration.”

Good comment. I keep waiting for him to have a Captain Queeg moment a la Humphrey Bogart in the movie classic The Caine Mutiny. Belive me, it’s coming. Narcissists don’t deal very well with setbacks and failure.

Obama argued that while a limited government that preserves free markets "speaks to our rugged individualism" as Americans, such a system "doesn't work" and "has never worked" and that Americans must look to a more activist government that taxes more, spends more and regulates more if they want to preserve the middle class

This is why I would have loved to see Gingrich debate 0bama. This is the whole point of this election. Capitalism vs Socialism. 0bama does not believe in capitalism.

Romney/Ryan need to hammer this non-stop.

40
posted on 09/03/2012 7:45:56 AM PDT
by FatherofFive
(Islam is evil and must be eradicated)

This rhetoic, pathetic as it is, resounds with some of the dumbasses we have who vote. In today’s letters to editor locally, some jackwaggon pointed out that the anti obama crowd believes that reducing taxes on the rich means they do not pay their fair share.

I wonder what this asshat would say if someone said, OK, why not just raise everyone’s taxes 5%, in other words, putting in a new bracket beginning at income level zero.

41
posted on 09/03/2012 7:45:56 AM PDT
by Mouton
(Voting is an opiate of the electorate. Nothing changes no matter who wins..)

Be confident! Remember, Starve the Beast 2.0 is the next step if he gets a second term. He won’t be able to just keep spending with even less tax revenue collected, and the people living off government either will get a check that bounces, or the printing of more money to cover expenses will cause dramatic inflation. Win or lose, we have a plan to bring government spending to a halt.

45
posted on 09/03/2012 7:54:45 AM PDT
by Son House
(The Economic Boom Heard Around The World => TEA Party 2012)

Blacks are going to vote for Obama regardless. But every time I see these white people behind Obama, nodding at his utterances and smiling beatifically as if they’re having a religious experience, I wonder what kind of mental illness has hold of them. I cannot understand it.

47
posted on 09/03/2012 7:55:57 AM PDT
by CatherineofAragon
(Don't be afraid to see what you see. (Ronald Reagan))

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.